Leong Mei Chuan v David Chan Texk Hock: Appeal of Ancillary Orders in Divorce - Division of Dell Stock Options

In Leong Mei Chuan v David Chan Texk Hock, before the High Court of Singapore on 25 July 2000, the wife/appellant, Leong Mei Chuan, appealed against a district judge's orders on ancillary matters following the dissolution of her marriage to the husband/respondent, David Chan Texk Hock. The court dismissed the wife's application to amend her notice of appeal to include a claim for division of unexercised vested stock options. The court found the delay in applying for the amendment was too long and without acceptable reasons.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Application to amend the Notice of Appeal was dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Family

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal regarding division of Dell stock options in divorce. The court dismissed the wife's application to amend her notice of appeal.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Leong Mei ChuanPetitioner, AppellantIndividualApplication to amend the Notice of Appeal was dismissedLost
David Chan Texk HockRespondentIndividualApplication to amend the Notice of Appeal was dismissedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Kan Ting ChiuJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
V KanyakumariSim Hill Tan & Wong
Janaine OngSim Hill Tan & Wong
Tan Hin TatSim Hill Tan & Wong
Anamah TanAnn Tan & Associates
Veronica JosephAnn Tan & Associates

4. Facts

  1. The parties were previously married and are now divorced.
  2. The wife/appellant appealed against a district judge's orders on ancillary matters.
  3. The husband/respondent is employed by Dell Computer Asia Ltd and receives stock options as part of his employment contract.
  4. The wife sought to amend her Notice of Appeal to claim a division of Dell stocks in the Non-Statutory Stocks Option agreements which have vested but yet to be exercised by the Respondent and which have yet to be vested in the Respondent.
  5. The application to amend the Notice of Appeal was filed more than three months after the time to appeal had expired.
  6. The court found the reasons for the delay in filing the application to amend were not meritorious.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Leong Mei Chuan v David Chan Texk Hock, D 3777/1997, RAS 720013/2000, RAS 720014/2000, SIC 750847/2000, [2000] SGHC 150

6. Timeline

DateEvent
District judge made her orders.
Appellant filed her Notice of Appeal.
Appellant appointed her current solicitors.
District judge issued her Grounds of Decision.
Appeal came on for hearing for the first time.
Appellant applied to amend her Notice of Appeal.
Application to amend the Notice of Appeal was dismissed.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal
    • Outcome: The court held that the appellant had not presented a sufficient case to exercise its discretion in her favor to allow her to amend the Notice of Appeal.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Length of delay
      • Reasons for delay
      • Chances of appeal succeeding
      • Degree of prejudice to the respondent

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Division of Dell stocks in the Non-Statutory Stocks Option agreements which have vested but yet to be exercised by the Respondent and which have yet to be vested in the Respondent.

9. Cause of Actions

  • Division of Matrimonial Assets

10. Practice Areas

  • Divorce
  • Appeals

11. Industries

  • Technology

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Hau Khee Wee & Anor v Chua Kian Tong & AnorHigh CourtYes[1986] SLR 484SingaporeCited for the factors to be taken into account in deciding whether to grant an extension of time to file a notice of appeal.
Pearson v Chen Chien Wen EdwinCourt of AppealYes[1991] 1 SLR 212SingaporeCited for the principle that the chances of the appeal succeeding should be considered when deciding whether to grant an extension of time to file a notice of appeal.
Stansfield Business International Pte Ltd (t/a Stansfield School of Business) v Vithya Sri SumathisHigh CourtYes[1999] 3 SLR 239SingaporeCited to show that a long delay can weigh heavily against the applicant.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Stock options
  • Vested options
  • Unvested options
  • Notice of Appeal
  • Extension of time
  • Ancillary matters
  • Matrimonial assets

15.2 Keywords

  • Divorce
  • Matrimonial Assets
  • Stock Options
  • Appeal
  • Singapore

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Matrimonial Assets90
Divorce80
Family Law75
Maintenance60

16. Subjects

  • Family Law
  • Civil Procedure
  • Divorce
  • Matrimonial Assets